Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rumiton

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Rumiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User imposing the sanction

The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Sanction being appealed

Rumiton’s indefinite ban from all Prem Rawat related articles.

Log of Blocks, Bans and Restrictions

Here (scroll to bottom.)

Reason for the appeal

1. Indefinite bans without evidence of wrongdoing are against the Wikipedia ethos and seem to set a dangerous precedent.

2. I am a Guild Member, with over 10,000 edits to 1300 pages in 6 years. I have played a major role in bringing articles (Sinking of the RMS Titanic, German battleship Bismarck, Ernst Lindemann and Attack on Sydney Harbour) to Featured Article status, helped put out fires at Jesus Army, and fought a long and mostly losing battle to keep Sathya Sai Baba honest. Admittedly, none of these was as contentious as the Prem Rawat pages, where a battleground mentality has proved resistant to change, but I believe I have been a moderating influence there also. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9],

3. As a result of a Decision Amendment Request, this article has now been brought under Standard Discretionary Sanctions. There are eight SDS criteria, [10] this action clearly fails:

i. No misconduct was identified that could “spill over to other areas of Wikipedia.”

ii. Additional input in this sanction does not appear to have been sought.

4. Blade’s comment, ‘‘I honestly hate to have to do this, but I think that the only way to stop the endless deadlock on the article is to go nuclear.’’ [11] is controversial. Rather than an “endless deadlock”, the article was steadily improving. A flurry of minor and discussed edits had recently been made, some of which I politely objected to. [12] Most of the other objections seemed focused on denigrating the subject and other editors, culminating in the outing of an editor and the blocking of the outer. [13]

5. Re article neutrality, I believe the article has improved. Littleolive oil (uninvolved) wrote in Rainer P’s appeal: ’’I...now...sense that Rawat is controversial, has detractors and supporters, and I have a sense of what his tenets are. I no longer feel I am being manipulated to see Rawat in any particular way. The slant when I came in was pejorative.’’ [14]

6. Blanket banning has not helped this article. Arguably this article has gone backwards since November.

7. While I admire Prem Rawat’s perspectives and perseverance, I have never held any official position in any of his organisations and have certainly never been paid to edit. I have no COI.

I believe The Blade of the Northern Lights has made a mistake in applying this sanction to me, and I respectfully request that it be lifted.

Notification of the administrator

[15]

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

OK, it took me a while to refresh my memory of all this, so here goes. First off, here is when I lifted the ban in August; I thought that Rumiton had done a considerable amount of good, neutral editing in a very tough article (2012 Assam violence was a gigantic mess and getting hit with all kinds of unhelpful garbage, and I commend him for the work he put in there). I thought it demonstrated his ability to keep neutral in a hard area, and figured it wouldn't hurt to allow him another chance at Prem Rawat. This is the statement I made on the matter in mid-December after I imposed the bans, when ArbCom decided to switch over to standard DS without vacating the sanctions I imposed. Since that time, my stance has not changed. As I alluded to, there's no one diff which can sum up what I was seeing, but it's the overall pattern which was the problem. I extensively talked this over with User:Steven Zhang (who I will notify now that I've mentioned him), who did a huge amount of mediation in the topic area, and he saw exactly what I did. Immediately after I imposed the bans several respected editors- including Jimbo personally- stepped in to undo several edits Rumiton had either done or supported; some of this can be seen at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 50#Massive revert of content, and the rest can be seen in the article history from that time.

With regard to Rumiton's statement above, my view essentially echoes IRWolfie-. To the extent that this appeal is directed at me, I decline it, and to the extent it's directed at others I encourage others to decline it as well. If the ban was lifted I would have the same view I expressed in December about how monopolized the article was before my intervention, and the statement above does not allay those concerns. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Richwales; here are the series of edits which ultimately made me go through with the bans. The edits were all made by Momento, but Rumiton repeatedly expressed his support of them, starting at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 50#Undue weight and moving through the next several threads. The edits were plainly tendentious and slanted, and Rumiton's total support of them indicates to me that he would pick up right where Momento left off. I explicitly talked about this with Steven Zhang, and he concurred based on the comments and his past experience working with Rumiton. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil

This ban should be investigated based on two issues, one on whether appropriate Wikipedia processes were or were not followed and two as a subsection of that what indications are there that the talk page processes on Prem Rawat were failing and a ban should be implemented. I came to the Prem Rawat article in August 2012 [16] because of this comment [17] on Jimbo Wales' talk page. I was an uninvolved editor with no knowledge of Prem Rawat or his organization. I idealistically hoped to help foster appropriate processes on the talk page and as someone uninvolved to quiet the incivility I found on the page. Simply, the talk page processes began to work and were on going and productive, (which I don't take credit for, but my intent was to help with this process). There was little or no edit warring although Pat W tended to degrade the process with incivility. In this atmosphere where editors had improved in their relations and progress was being made, Blade of the Northern Lights made a surprising and extreme move banning 4 editors, without diffs that illustrated problematic behaviour. Given the ongoing improvement in the article environment, the ban is puzzling to say the least. Not only where there no diffs, there were no diffs showing individual editor misbehaviour and nothing that I saw then indicated Rumiton should be removed from the article. Each editor on editing this article is an individual and while Wikipedia processes allow a single admin to ban or block based on discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia processes also indicate editors can expect to be told why they have been banned. I know that the Prem Rawat article is highly contentious and has been the subject of several arbitration. Unfortunately, the progress that was being made in term of collaboration was abruptly ended with this ban.

• • My concern with this whole issue is the continued focus on the past rather than on the present, and on viewing this article from one side and not holistically. When I went into this article, I knew nothing about Rumiton, Momento, or any of the other regular editor on the PR with the exception of Will Beback now banned from all NRM articles. What does that ban say about the dynamics of this article? Does it say the problems were all on one side. On the contrary, yet I went into this article with the assumption that certain editors must be at fault. Frankly that's not what I found. I found levels of aggression and incivility that eventually forced me to leave the article, and I found editors attempting to discuss perfectly acceptable points of contention and being attacked for doing so. Tendentious editing is a highly abstract idea. Better to lay out specific instances of concern than sweep the whole situation into the one bag of tendentious editing. Better to see who is doing what, and especially why without the added baggage of presumptions.

My sense is that like me, others came onto this article with a predisposed view of the situation based on the past arbitrations. There may well have been concerns as the arbitrations outlined. I am however, inclined to look at those arbitrations with fresh eyes given the input a now banned editor had in them and to look at the talk page of Prem Rawat from more than one angle What is needed now is not to look at the past, but at what really is happening now, and to remember on Wikipedia narratives about editors are easy to create, and easier still to perpetuate and grow until they become the accepted reality. Its not easy for an editor to undo such a narrative and its easy for the rest of us, by far, to assume that the narrative, by the time it reaches us, is the right story , rather than to change how we think and look at other people. That's as true in life as it is here. I'm convinced given my experience on the talk page of PR there's much more here than meets the eye and that these editors, specifically Rumiton in this appal, based on the improvements I saw pervious to the ban, deserve a chance to continue to evolve as editors hopefully leaving the past behind. If they don't the article, is under discretionary sanctions. If there is a next time, I hope clear diffs will used to show problems which should save time for everyone.(olive (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC))

• • I am concerned respectfully . My vote was forgotten and and clearly supports a lifting of the ban. I hope the result of this request will be reconsidered.(olive (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for moving/removing my comment since it seems to be in the wrong place.(olive (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

• • Sandstein. My position and comments on that page were clearly not in support of any one side, and I came into the article in more of a mediation position rather than with any view or POV. Using one edit that was added to create perspective for Jimbo's undiscussed addition does not by any standard define the work I did on that article mostly in discussion. I hope you are not using one diff as reason to exclude my vote. If the admins need more diffs to explain my position on that page please let me know, But as is, this seems an unfair exclusion of my vote. I will however concede to the decision if there is no change and encourage Rumiton to pursue clarification.(olive (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

• • Add: If my vote is ignored because I have more involvement than the other "uninvolved" editors and some invisible line has been drawn, fine. If its because a POV is perceived, that is incorrect . Probably only a un biased reading of the threads would bear me out. I imagine I'll be ignored, but this is for the record.(olive (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC))

Statement by Rumiton

@Sandstein. I know there is a lot of stuff to follow in this case, or cases. Here is where Blade's first ban on me was lifted, in August on Sept 5, 2012. Should this lifting have been advised on the Noticeboard? Rumiton (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

@Richwales. Thanks for giving me this opportunity. Every question merits an essay, but I will be as concise as I can.

1. Briefly, what do you think are the best aspects of the Prem Rawat article as it currently stands?

I think the article is reasonably well-balanced. The flurry of ridicule and mockery that greeted his arrival in the West is acknowledged neutrally and the sources given. The positive reception he has received is also acknowledged.

2. Briefly, and without going into excessive detail or becoming confrontational, what do you think are the worst aspects of the article as it currently stands?

The article shows the scars from previous bitter disputes, deals and unworkable compromises. I hope this doesn’t confront anybody, but the lead currently says, to paraphrase: ‘’Prem Rawat was the leader of the Divine Light Mission which has been described as a cult, and he has been described as a cult leader by writers who oppose cults.’’ This was obviously inserted without discussion by editors who do not view him favorably and wanted to get their message across. The article suffers accordingly.

The article is also light wrt the post-1980’s, and the bar for sources for new material has been set very high. I can give specifics and diffs if required.

3. How do you feel the core Wikipedia content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BLP) should guide the content of the Prem Rawat article and related articles? In particular, to what extent do you believe the BLP policy may limit our ability to write a fair, balanced, and neutral article here?

I was a Navy and Merchant Marine officer for a lot of years. During this time my life was largely governed by 38 rules for preventing collisions. But the most important rule was never put to paper: Rule 39, “Do not have a collision.” In other words, if you follow all the rules doggedly and still create a catastrophe, you will at least partially get the blame for it. I think Wikipedia is the same. The rules are good; far-sighted, well-evolved and necessary, but there is something overriding them. That something might be called “intelligent kindness.” If we follow rules blindly and produce an article that does not honestly inform the reader, or that is unfair, or reflects the aims of bad journalists in manipulating readers’ feelings into self-righteous indignation or false intellectual superiority, we have created a shipwreck, and we have no one to blame for it but ourselves.

4. How should the Wikipedia community handle situations where various people have widely differing views on what the Prem Rawat article should contain and how it should be written? Do you believe it is possible for editors working on this article to reach a balanced consensus that is neither a whitewash nor an attack piece? To what extent (if any) do you believe the logjams can be resolved only by banning certain people (possibly you, possibly others, but don't name names here) from working on the article at all?

I am not going to say it’s easy. Last year I decided all the soapboxing and personal attacks made it too hard, and I would walk away permanently and concentrate on several hundred other articles: [18] Somehow I ended up back editing. The answer I think is in more editors with a good grasp of these principles getting involved in content and responding to informal requests for comments. Perhaps a summary of principles might be placed on a banner on the talk page. Unfortunately previous high-level input has reinforced the notion that in this article, negative stuff is neutral, and positive stuff can only be from a biased cult member.

Yes, I do believe it is possible to achieve consensus, but highly POV’d editors occasionally need an official reminder that that is what we are working toward. “The article that none of us might have chosen, but with which we all can live.”

I think banning is a radical procedure, really a last ditch action. Long after the dead editors have been hosed out, the smell of blood remains on the talk page, and whether banning an editor without supplying sufficient cause is classed as a personal attack or not, [19] I can assure everyone that it feels like one. I think it does nothing for Wikipedia.

5. To what extent (if any) do you feel you are willing to accept content in the Prem Rawat article with which you are not personally comfortable?

I accept nearly all the current content, though I have some issues with emphasis and weight. I would have to deal with suggestions for new content case-by-case, like everyone else.

6. Do you believe you are able (and willing) to write in a way that fairly, accurately, and neutrally presents views regarding Prem Rawat with which you personally disagree?

Perhaps I cannot do that, but neither can anyone else. That is why I have always tried, and if reinstated will continue to try, to get input from as many other editors as I can (as I did here) [20]. In the past it has rarely been forthcoming (apart from kneejerk opposition) and I do not understand why, as plenty of people seem to be watching the talk page. Too hard, perhaps. Rumiton (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@Steven Zhang. Steve, your mediation efforts were appreciated and I am sure would have born more fruit were it not for the participation of one particular editor. Looking at the 2008 discussion of Cagan as an example, 153 posts were made by editor Will Beback, about twice as many as those from all other editors combined. At the time Will was still presenting as a neutral administrator, but time has shown him to have been an implacable foe of this subject and a number of similar subjects. There was no possibility of reaching an agreement with Will that did not involve total surrender to his POV, and I feel it is unfair to hold our past difficulties against me now, especially as a number of contesting editors on both sides of the fence no longer edit Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry, it looks like I initially posted this in the wrong section. My mistake. Thanks for shifting it.) Rumiton (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC) @Mastcell. May I ask if you actually looked at my edits? I have mainly been accused of supporting tendentious editing, but not one diff supporting this has been shown. On the contrary, I believe my editing shows a pattern of trying to ameliorate extreme views on both sides. Re my banning history, perhaps I should have appealed my previous topic bans first (I think they were similarly flimsy) but I was told this appeal would be taken on its merits.

This is indeed a difficult area to edit in, but the reasons for that lie in the history of the subject. As a teenager, Prem Rawat was largely jeered at by the lightweight press of the 70's, but taken much more seriously by academic sources. Since the 80's, much of his coverage has been in in-house, (tertiary education, health care and penal institutions etc) or foreign language, sources. It is a hard situation, but I don't think you have been fair in saying I "essentially admit I am unable to neutrally present views with which I disagree". I have said that nobody has been able to fairly represent all the available sources, but I think my strategy of wide consultation is the best. If permitted to edit again, I would use RfC, 3d Opinions, and other noticeboards more fully, and this would be a benefit to the article. No doubt I would be watched closely to make sure that I did.

If an appeal against a topic banning that cannot be justified by evidence is dismissed because the banning admin and one mediator still thought it was justified, then is there any point to having an appeal process in place? Rumiton (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang

Hello. My experience with the Prem Rawat articles spans back to 2008, where I have served as a mediator a few times over the years. Like all long-running disputes, this is a difficult one to resolve, and while there has progress over the years it has predominantly slow. Over the years, various involved editors have been topic or site banned, and the editors that have been involved for many years on the article has whittled down. Now, I'm not an admin and I'm not going to tell y'all how to do your job, but my assessment of the situation is this is an intractable dispute that no amount of dispute resolution can resolve. For disputes to be resolved, it is required that all parties have a desire to work together and move forward, and be open to compromise. From my experience, this does not exist, which leaves the article (which is a BLP) unstable, and prone to NPOV and edit warring issues.

I believe that The Blade has taken a precautionary approach in this situation, noting previous issues with editing that took place in the past. Rumiton had been topic banned three times from Prem Rawat in the past, for a period of one week, one year by ArbCom, and then indefinitely by The Blade (though this was lifted in September for 2 months). I agree with the reasoning of The Blade - in the past Rumiton and Momento have supported each other in the edits they made, even when these were in breach of policy. As pointed out, this continued at the time shortly preceding the topic ban, and I agree with his assessment that if Momento was topic banned, it would have been very likely to be picked up in some way by Rumiton. This isn't a sure thing of course, but based on the history of the article this seemed very likely, and thus a topic ban being a reasonable measure.

It is my opinion that the topic ban should not be lifted - of course it is not my decision, but I have a strong feeling that the article will become unstable if topic bans start to be lifted. I'd encourage the uninvolved adminsistrators to review the past dispute resolution attempts for Prem Rawat (below) and understand how intricate this dispute is before deciding how to act. I acknowledge that it is not the role of AE administrators to resolve content disputes, but your actions may make it easier or harder for us to do so, and it's a tough enough job as it is. Please think carefully. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the DR attempts include - Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat all the way to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 6, the MedCab case I took (with the proposals for changes and associated discussions - one page alone amounted to 500k)

Statement by Momento

There is only one issue here and Rumiton has identified it, if vaguely, in his first point. As clearly expressed in ArbCom's "Burden of proof and personal attacks", "the onus is on the sanctioning editor to provide the evidence to prove his claim. (And) failing to do so may constitute a personal attack. The longstanding "No Personal Attacks" policy states that "serious accusations require serious evidence". [21] BotNL offered no evidence at all. BotNL needs to provide "serious evidence""citing supporting diffs where appropriate" of Rumiton's "battleground behaviour over the last several months" prior to his banning. Irrespective of the evidence, or lack of it, a member of a minority "religion/group" like Rumiton will never win a Wikipedia popularity contest and the only way this sanction will be overturned is "with the written authorization of the Committee".Momento (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not that my edits have anything to do with Rumiton but here is a synopsis of the 17 edits I made that caused BotNL to ban Rumiton. [22] You'll note that 17 editors were editing the article at that time and none objected to my proposals or my edits when I made them. The edits are not tendentious or slanted, they were accepted without objection by the 17 editors editing and the 446 editors who have Prem Rawat on their watch list. A direct contradiction of BotNL's above claim that "the article was monopolized before (his) intervention". Momento (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved IRWolfie-

Firstly I will note that significant consensus is required for an overturn: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Reversal_of_enforcement_actions. I will also note that I have never edited an article about Prem Rawat as far as I am aware. Now a point by point look at the appeal:

1. This reason for the appeal does not cite any specifics to the case.

2. Work at other article is entirely irrelevant to the current case.

3. I see no eight SDS categories. What I see is a summary of discretionary sanctions provided in 8 bullet points. Your quote, wherever it is from, is not a quote of WP:AC/DS. No additional input is required for any administrator to impose discretionary sanctions.

4. Subjective, unsubstantiated and irrelevant. It does not mention the specifics of why the topic ban was put in place.

5. Calling olive, an editor who has a keen interest in meditation, and who perhaps works for a meditation related institute (I was unable to confirm or refute this from what I can see on-wiki, see the COIN archives) and who made many edits to the page and about the page, uninvolved is a bit of a stretch of the imagination. I don't hold this particular editors opinion (one of many opinions) there in high regard, and I'm not sure why you do.

6. This is entirely subjective and unsubstantiated. It is also irrelevant, but shows that you haven't moved on.

7. Where was a COI mentioned?

In summary, no substantive reason to do anything. Rather a lot of erroneous points and arguments have been thrown about. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@Olive, I am merely noting that you are involved, not uninvolved as initially claimed in the appeal. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear if Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Burden_of_proof_and_personal_attacks is meant to apply to WP:AC/DS (which makes no mention of it, and where the appeal process is markedly different from other appeals). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Olive, Momento highlighted it as possibly relevant. It does not just apply to TM, but is meant to reflect a general principle of wikipedia. That is why it is in a section called principles. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Editing a talk page supporting tendentious editing is as disruptive as making the edits, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

@Richwales: Restoring a comment which was a violation of an editors topic ban seems an extremely unusual step. Doesn't that essentially reward violating the topic ban? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Keithbob

I saw the note from Rumiton on Littleolive oil's talk page and thought I'd wander over. I've never edited the PR page but I have 19 edits to the talk page as a consequence of two RfC's on that page back in 2010 and 2011. I've been watching the goings on there, off and on, since then and I'm interested in this mass topic ban. There were no diffs given in Blade's initial post explaining Rumiton's topic ban here And when it was brought up at ArbRequestsEnforcement only one diff was provided and that was for an edit made by Momento not by Rumiton Each editor is an individual person and deserves to be treated as such. I look forward to the presentation of evidence in the specific case of Rumiton.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Having been asked now three times, in various venues, for examples of Rumiton's edits that would justify a topic ban, not a single diff has been provided. The rationale for the ban was what Rumiton might do: "Rumiton's total support of them [edits by Momento] indicates to me that he would pick up right where Momento left off" is not a justification for including him in a mass topic ban. I find this unacceptable and feel strongly the ban should be lifted.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

Appeal should be granted per Sandstein below. (I used to edit the topic area, but it's been more than a year that I've set foot there.) Andreas JN466 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Rumiton

POV pushing on a talkpage is also grounds for action being taken against you. It's disruptive IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Rumiton

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I'm awaiting a statement from TBoTNL but the area was covered by an ArbCom mandated probation at that time and it is within administrator discretion to impose sanctions. The bans were explained by TBoTNL on the article talk page[23] - further clarification could have been sought directly from the imposing sysop. Furthermore Rumiton was also indefinitely banned in April 2012 from this topic area after an AE thread, and was previously banned from it in 2008. I haven't been able to find where the April 2012 ban was lifted - it would be useful if a link to this could be posted--Cailil ^talk 11:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• I've looked at Rumiton's edits to Prem Rawat over the two months prior to his topic ban, and I'm sorry, but nothing in his edits to this article during this period strike me as substantial enough to support a conclusion that Rumiton was engaging in disruptive or "battleground" behaviour at that time. With all possible respect to others who may have a different view, I'm not a fan of collective punishment, and I'm not inclined to support a major sanction (such as a long-term block or topic ban) on an individual editor based on a gestalt reading of an overall situation. If TBotNL, or others supporting his actions, are aware of specific actions by Rumiton in the few weeks or days prior to mid-November of last year which would justify an indefinite / permanent topic ban, please show us the diffs; otherwise, I would favour a lifting of Rumiton's topic ban now. And even assuming for the sake of argument that the topic ban was originally justified, over four months have passed since then, and I believe it's worth seeing what happens now if he is allowed back in. If Rumiton (and/or any other editors involved in this same incident) do get unbanned, his/their actions are surely going to be subject to increased scrutiny; and if Rumiton does start or resume engaging in disruptive editing, I may well be inclined to block him myself next time. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• @TBotNL, I read the material you cited at Talk:Prem Rawat#Archive 50. Assuming for the moment that Momento was in fact being tendentious here, this talk page discussion still doesn't establish to my mind that Rumiton was being (or was of a mind to be) similarly tendentious. I'm much more interested in what Rumiton actually did to the article — which, as I said, does not seem to me to rise anywhere near the level of "battleground behaviour". As for Steven Zhang and his agreeing with you, I would really prefer to hear from Steven Zhang directly and understand what he thinks of all this from his own fingers on his keyboard. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a request on Steven Zhang's talk page, asking him to come here to this AE request and give us his views directly. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Rumiton, I have some questions to ask you regarding the way you view the condition of the Prem Rawat article and how you would conduct yourself in the event your topic ban were to be lifted.

1. Briefly, what do you think are the best aspects of the Prem Rawat article as it currently stands?
2. Briefly, and without going into excessive detail or becoming confrontational, what do you think are the worst aspects of the article as it currently stands?
3. How do you feel the core Wikipedia content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BLP) should guide the content of the Prem Rawat article and related articles? In particular, to what extent do you believe the BLP policy may limit our ability to write a fair, balanced, and neutral article here?
4. How should the Wikipedia community handle situations where various people have widely differing views on what the Prem Rawat article should contain and how it should be written? Do you believe it is possible for editors working on this article to reach a balanced consensus that is neither a whitewash nor an attack piece? To what extent (if any) do you believe the logjams can be resolved only by banning certain people (possibly you, possibly others, but don't name names here) from working on the article at all?
5. To what extent (if any) do you feel you are willing to accept content in the Prem Rawat article with which you are not personally comfortable?
6. Do you believe you are able (and willing) to write in a way that fairly, accurately, and neutrally presents views regarding Prem Rawat with which you personally disagree?

I believe it is important for us, as we consider your ban appeal, to hear and understand your views regarding these questions. Basic, general principles are what I'm hoping to see here. As you write your answers, please don't go into so much lengthy detail that someone might be tempted to impose sanctions against you for violating your current topic ban (which, of course, still remains in effect until and unless it gets lifted). However, as long as you are making a good-faith effort to explain your current views and to give us a good idea of what we should expect to see from you if you do get unbanned, I will actively support your right (per WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans) to express yourself on this subject and in this forum, and I trust that others will also give you the benefit of the doubt on this point as long as you are reasonably trying to express yourself in a helpful way.

Since the section of the page in which I am writing this is reserved for comments by uninvolved admins, please put your comments in your section above, along with other editors' statements. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• @IRWolfie-: You ask a reasonable question (regarding my reinstatement of Momento's comments), but I believe I did the right thing here. First, I waited to do this until after Sandstein (the admin who had blocked Momento and deleted his comments) indicated he would not object. Second, I consider Momento's comments to be relevant to our discussion — to help us put Rumiton's topic ban in its proper context, and to see an important part of the material which apparently prompted TBotNL to impose the topic ban. As for the propriety of restoring edits made in defiance of a ban (assuming that is in fact what Momento did — Sandstein and I will apparently have to continue to "agree to disagree" on this question), the banning policy (WP:BAN) does not demand that such edits should be reverted. And I really don't see what I did as "rewarding" Momento for his misconduct, because the block Sandstein imposed on him is still in effect. Since Momento's comments are back in play, I trust people will read them, check out the link he provided to his synopsis of the edits leading up to the topic ban, and decide for themselves what bearing (if any) this material may have on their view of Rumiton's topic ban. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Rumiton, thank you very much for your reply to my list of questions. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Steven Zhang, I looked at the failed mediation efforts you referred to, and I'm concerned that almost all of them appear to be very old. The most recent mediation effort I could find which specifically included Rumiton happened in 2010 (the most recent effort, in 2012, didn't involve Rumiton, so I really don't think it should be considered here). While it may very likely be the case that Prem Rawat and other articles have always been problematic and will always continue to be so, that isn't a good enough reason (IMO) to permanently topic-ban someone on the basis of general worries that don't explicitly and unambiguously involve that specific individual editor's recent misdeeds. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Momento's statement above violates their own topic ban. I'm removing the statement and blocking Momento, in enforcement of the ban, for a week.  Sandstein  07:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I question whether this action really is appropriate under the circumstances. Momento is at least somewhat involved here, since he was topic-banned along with Rumiton. And the information Momento posted (and which has now been deleted) included a link to material that is relevant to our discussion. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll unblock Momento if they want to appeal their own ban rather than discuss the ban of others (see User talk:Sandstein#Blocking Momento?).  Sandstein  07:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if Momento remains blocked, though, I believe the material he posted here prior to the block (including a link to one of his subpages in which the editing activity leading up to the ban are described) is relevant to our discussion, that the deletion of this material was/is not required by Momento's topic ban, and that Momento's comment should be restored to our discussion. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If a non-banned editor considers the material useful for the purpose of this discussion, they are welcome to restore it.  Sandstein  20:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done this. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• On the merits, based on the explanation given by The Blade of the Northern Lights I consider that the ban of Rumiton was likely made in error. I do not think that discussion page statements in support of tendentious editing merit the same sanction (let alone an indefinite topic ban) as that received by the editor, Momento, who actually made the allegedly tendentious edits. In particular, I'm not aware, in the statements made by The Blade of the Northern Lights in support of the sanction, of seeing a diff of even one allegedly problematic edit by Rumiton.

  Nonetheless, for procedural reasons, I'm not yet convinced that I should support removing the ban. As Cailil points out, Rumiton had already been topic-banned in April 2012, also by The Blade of the Northern Lights. That ban is still in force, and no argument has been made here that it was made in error. As such, unless the April ban is also appealed and overturned, appealing and overturning the November ban (at issue here) appears pointless.  Sandstein  08:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Rumiton points out, above, that The Blade of the Northern Lights did lift the April ban in September. This was not logged on the case page; I've now done so. As such, I tend to be of the view that the appeal should be granted and the ban lifted, unless The Blade of the Northern Lights can more clearly explain, on the basis of specific edits made by Rumiton at the time, why the ban of Rumiton needed to be reinstated in November.  Sandstein  10:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Sandstein's block of Momento. Regarding Rumiton, frankly I can see where Steven and TBotNL are coming from. The re-imposition of the April 2012 ban in November for a return to previous bad behaviour (supporting tendentious edits by Momento) makes perfect sense to me - its a failure to abide by unban conditions (which were loosely laid-out in that discussion about the ban being lifted[24]). It should also be noted that these actions were undertaken while a second RFAR was in progress, i.e misbehaviour during RFAR is a very bad idea. That said I think this ban and the lifting of the April ban were sloppy. AE and AC/DS bans need to be clear, unbanning conditions need to be clear also. I don't however see this as grounds for over-turning. My reasoning on that is based on the actual appeal above which fails to take account of any wrong doing in the past regarding this topic nor does it outline how this user will avoid a return to actions that twice led to indefinite topic bans. That said given that 6 months has elapsed and given that no specific edits by Rumiton have been or were the cause of this ban I would be open to a conditional (and clearly explained/defined) unban, on the basis that if these conditions are broken the ban will be re-imposed--Cailil ^talk 16:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• It seems that discussion about this appeal has stalled. My assessment is that several administrators (including me) as well as other editors have voiced concerns about this topic ban, while others support it, but that we do not have the "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" that is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. As such, if there are no objections, I'll close this appeal as unsuccessful, while advising Rumiton that they may still appeal the ban to the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  06:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I object. My reading of the discussion so far is that there is a clear consensus in favour of lifting Rumiton's topic ban. There is disagreement over whether TBotNL was right to have imposed the ban in the first place, but most comments appear to me to support the idea that the ban can and should end now. Some want to go a bit further, cautioning Rumiton to be especially careful, and reminding him that Prem Rawat remains under discretionary sanctions and that disruptive editing by Rumiton or anyone else will not be tolerated. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hm, among uninvolved admins, we three (you, I and Cailil) seem to favor some sort of lifting of the ban, but among the other editors that label themselves (rightly or wrongly) or appear to be uninvolved two (Jayen466 and Keithbob) support lifting the ban and two (IRWolfie-, Steven Zhang) oppose it, in addition to the sanctioning administrator. I agree that this amounts to "normal" consensus among administrators and perhaps among contributors more broadly, but by proportion and number of contributors (less than a dozen) it does not seem to be the "clear, substantial, and active" kind of consensus required for the exceptional step of overturning an enforcement action per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions. However, that page also instructs that "if consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Accordingly, I suggest that this thread be closed with the result that the parties (Rumiton and/or The Blade of the Northern Lights) may file a request for clarification to determine the outcome of this appeal.  Sandstein  07:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

  P.S. As concerns Littleolive oil, they have made contributions to this topic area that indicate an association with one side of the underlying content dispute (e.g., [25]), such that I am not ready to count their opinion as that of an uninvolved editor.  Sandstein  14:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Sandstein in order to lift/reverse a discretionary sanction the consensus needs to be much stronger. AC/DS are based on sysop discretion, and thus we HAVE TO allow for fuzziness on occassion and as above I can see where Steven and TBotNL are coming from with this ban. As a positive suggestion perhaps we should close this without prejudice to an appeal sooner rather than later. As long as that appeal actually deals with how Rumition will abide by policy rather than on the more WP:NOTTHEM aspects of this one--Cailil ^talk 14:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Would it be possible for us to bring in a couple of outside, so-far-completely-uninvolved opinions regarding the situation before closing this? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to asking for further admin input at e.g. WP:AN.  Sandstein  15:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have made a request at WP:AN for additional opinions. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• (Responding to the request for additional input at WP:AN) I hate to complicate the lack of consensus further, but after reviewing this request I'd be concerned about lifting Rumiton's topic ban. The Rawat articles are among the longest-standing and most-problematic trouble spots on Wikipedia. Rumiton has been topic-banned at least three times previously (including a year-long ban by ArbCom), so we're not talking about a second chance here; more like a 4th chance, so the bar is pretty high. An admin and mediator (BotNL and Steven Zhang) with deep experience in the area have grave concerns about lifting this topic ban. I'm inclined to respect their reservations, particularly since the troubled history of this topic area creates a pretty high bar in my mind for lifting the sanction. I'm not seeing anyone articulate a clear benefit to the project in having Rumiton back on these articles (he essentially admits that he's unable to neutrally present views with which he disagrees), whereas it's quite easy to see the potential downside to the project of lifting the ban given Rumiton's past history in the topic area. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK, considering that the consensus has not become clearer, I again suggest that this thread be closed with the result that the parties (Rumiton and/or The Blade of the Northern Lights) may file a request for clarification to determine the outcome of this appeal.  Sandstein  14:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think that sounds reasonable--Cailil ^talk 16:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ebrahimi-amir

Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs) is banned from everything related to the topics of Armenia or Azerbaijan for six months.  Sandstein  14:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Ebrahimi-amir User who is submitting this request for enforcement Xodabande14 (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Ebrahimi-amir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced ARBAA2 [26] Allegations of misconduct removed by an administrator; these belong in the subsequent sections.  Sandstein  12:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 7 April 2013 Inserted self-made map (made by Ebrahimi Amir) without engaging in discussion (violating terms set by admins for his block removal. Slow revert warring which he was called out specifically to stop as well) 29 April 2012Inserted self-made map (made by Ebrahimi Amir) without engaging in discussion (violating terms set by admins for his block being removed.) Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on [27] by Admin Khoikhoi (warned of AA Arbcomm sanctions) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Violation of terms for which he was unbanned User Ebrahimi Amir was originally banned from Wikipedia for being an SPA and making nationalistic edits. Later on, he apologized and his ban was lifted. He got some more blocks for nationalistic edit warring and reverting. However, the condition for the lifting of his ban was discussed by administrator Khoikhoi and another administrator. Please note this stern warning for his behavior when his last block was removed: [28]. I will quote exactly from the link(from the admin who banned him once for SPA and gave him an AA warning): Slow motion edit warring is still considered edit warring. I'm advising you now to seriously re-examine your pattern of behavior at this encyclopedia, or you will be subject to editing sanctions. Any potentially controversial changes that are disputed by other editors need to be discussed, and you must cite your sources. Thank you. . The second block by User:Atama: "Editor has pledged not to engage in further edit wars" [29]. Note also his last unblock and the admin User:Tiptoety who sanctioned him: "Slow moving edit warring at Hamadan Province & Kurdish people after unblocked with agreement to cease edit warring"[30] User Ebrahimi_Amir ignored (after AA sanction warnings) the terms made by the admin Khoikhoi and the other admins by this edit: [31] whereby he inserted his own self-made map (his own creation) in the article after it was reverted. On both diffs he failed to discuss as conditioned by terms of his last warning. Specially this is clear on his 2013 diff. He simply re-inserted the map (he has created) forcefully without feedback from other users. Other users who are on good Wikipedia terms disagreed with his self-made map [32]. Yet Ebrahimi Amir inserted his self-made map (the first diff above), knowing it was controversial, without any discussions. This map has been reverted several times [33][34][35] by different users since it is POV, and it is a pattern of slow revert warring in the article that Ebrahimi Amir was admonished for to stop. I note a user who is not from the area of region of conflict who removed the map made by Ebrahimi Amir and who noted: minus POV map, this language map is more NPOV) [36]. In short: Ebrahimi Amir engaged in slow revert warring, and did not discuss his revert to his self-made map (which falsifies sources) as mandated by admins who have blocked and unblocked him. He also did not cease his edit warring as his non WP:RS self-made map has been reverted multiple times in the article. Rest of old comments on falsifying ethnic maps The rest of my old comments on why the map is self-made and ethno-nationalist can be seen here: [37]. I suggested administrators look at this as well as the two are connected. In a nut-shell: User creates baseless non WP:RS ethno-nationalist maps and inserts them in Wikipedia, and then reverts other users without engaging discussion. I also suggest administrators look at his userpage [38]. Despite the fact that there are WP:RS maps, the user reverts other users and inserts his own nationalistic made maps without discussions (something he was warned before on his last block to stop)--Xodabande14 (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC) The remainder of this statement has been removed by an administrator for exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above by a lot.  Sandstein  14:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Discussion concerning Ebrahimi-amir Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Ebrahimi-amir The red color in the map does not mean that other people do not live there. you can see all talk about the maps in here.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Thim map was drawn based on "Geography and population of Turkish people in Iran" Alireza Sarrafi, Journal "Dilmaj", No. 2, 2004, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azerbaijani_people_in_Middel_East.jpg this map was drawn based on several sources that list in map page--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC) It seems that this case is due to a personal dispute. Here you can read about these activities.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Where did you realize that Alireza Sarrafi is a nationalist? Do you have a valid source WP:RS for this statement? Or the personal opinion do you say this?WP:ORIGINAL "He is from the same ethnic group and nationalistic, so it should not be used in Wikipedia" The author belongs to a nation. Are all writers are the nationalists? Map drawn by Alireza Sarrafi corresponded with Ahmad Kasravi's writings. Do Kasravi was an Azeri nationalist? According to Ahmed KASRAVI (November 1922): “ It is difficult to decide these days whether there, are more Turks than Persians. This can only be decided after a census is taken which distinguishes Turks from Persians, but the Iranian government has not to this day conducted such a census of its citizens or the population of its provinces, let alone distinguish Persian from Turk. His estimation generally inclines the author to the belief that the majority is Turks, but we will not speculate idly, but stick to the research we have conducted which we present below, with general and approximate figures. 1) Azerbaijan, which is the largest of Iran's four provinces,' and Iran's most important. It has a population of one and a half million souls, and the district of Khamse, which is generally populated, among its nomads and settled people, its villages and its cities, by Turks (along with a small minority of Mokri Kurds in Azerbaijan who speak Kurdish) who do not understand Persian until they are taught it by a teacher or an official. 2) Most villages and tribes in the provinces of Khorasan and Fars and the districts of Hamadan and Qazvin and NIraq and Astarabad are Turks, and travelers wandering the streets and alleys of Tehran have been astonished at seeing the villagers walking about speaking in Turkish. Some of these had migrated from Azerbaijan and Khamse in recent years and stay in the cities and no longer consider themselves to be from their land of origin, but from these cities. 3) As for the other parts of Iran, the majority of the people there are not Turks, but there are many among the tribesmen and villagers who are. An exception is the province of Kerman and the districts of Gilan, Mazandaran, Kurdestan, Lurestan, etc., in which there are no Turks except those who have migrated there recently, and they do not consider themselves to be true residents of these provinces. That Russian adage is true which says, "There is no reed without a knob." Indeed, Mazandaran has two Turkish tribes, along with their clans, and in Sari, the capital of that district, over twenty Turkish clans which have migrated from all over Iran and settled there, and they no longer speak Turkish. We have decided (as we have said) to explain nothing except what can be explained with Arabic numerals, and estimations and speculation are absolutely unsatisfactory. ” Source: THE TURKISH LANGUAGE IN IRAN By Ahmed KASRAVI,latimeria: Prof. Dr. Evan Siegal, Journal of Azerbaijani Studies, 1998, Vol. 1, No 2, [6] , Khazar University Press , ISSN 1027-387 --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The remainder of this statement has been removed by an administrator for exceeding the 500 word limit indicated above by a lot.  Sandstein  14:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Dougweller There's a bit of confusion here about the discussion at Commons:File talk:Turkic people in Iran.jpg. I translated a comment by now-inactive (here at least) User:SLFAW which the editor hadn't signed, and I didn't sign it for him or format it so that it was clear it was a separate comment and I was only translating it. Then another editor, ماني replied saying the map was exaggerated. The comment " احمق باباي جناب عالي " was aimed at that editor. The only editors who have posted and are still active are myself and Ebrahimi-amir. I am not an expert in the history or geography of the area but will take a look at the Wikipedia issues later. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Dbachmann I was asked to comment, but I see admins are already taking good care of this. My comment is this: we cannot ban an editor just for inserting an unreferenced map, but if an editor had already been banned for their nationalism-fuelled disruption and they pledged to stop this, and then they go ahead and re-insert unreferenced maps motivated by a nationalistic agenda, I would strongly agree that permabanning such an editor for good is doing everybody (the project, all active admins, all involved editors, and not least the offending editor himself) a favour. I don't care if an editor is a nationalist as long as they are willing and able to follow WP:RS and build whatever case they want based on honest representation of quotable sources. If they cannot or will not do this, we, as a project, simply are not interested in their participation. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Result concerning Ebrahimi-amir This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The comments accompanying the request are excessively long. I've removed them because they are not useful in this form. Xodabande14 may resubmit new comments within the constraints of 500 words and 20 diffs indicated above. Please recall that AE requests should in principle be limited to a list of dated recent diffs and a short explanation why each diff violates which policy or guideline or other rule of conduct. Additional comments should be limited to very briefly outlining relevant context, such as previous sanctions, but not contain allegations of misconduct apart from those which are the subject of the AE request itself. Note: Khoikhoi isn't an administrator.(sorry, my mistake)  Sandstein  12:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC) OK, my initial assessment is that we can't really consider sanctions for edit-warring (slow or otherwise) on the basis of only the two diffs submitted as evidence. But we can examine whether the insertion of File:Azerbaijani people in Middel East.jpg instead of File:Azerbaijanilanguage.png, and of File:Turkic people in Iran.jpg instead of File:Iran-Ethnicity-2004.PNG constitutes tendentious editing (violating WP:NPOV) and/or a violation of WP:V because the first of these two self-made maps does not cite any sources. While these are conduct issues, we must take care not to confuse them with the underlying content disputes, which we may not adjudicate. I therefore invite comment by other users about these matters, and I urgently invite Ebrahimi-amir to address them in a response. I'm also contacting the two admins who have previously taken action with respect to Ebrahimi-amir, Khoikhoi and Tiptoety, to invite them to comment here.  Sandstein  18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC) User:Ebrahimi-amir's usage of File:Azerbaijani people in Middel East.jpg is obvious tendentious editing, in my opinion. His map shows no Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh. He gets extra credit for misspelling both words of 'Middle East.' This map looks like cartoonish POV-pushing, especially when contrasted with a respectable academic map such as commons:File:Iran ethnoreligious distribution 2004.jpg. I would recommend that Ebrahimi-Amir be topic banned from AA for at least six months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I concur with this analysis and the proposed sanction.  Sandstein  08:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC) So closed, then, before this devolves further into a content dispute.  Sandstein  14:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Cptnono

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Cptnono

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy 07:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 02:09, 8 April 2013 1st revert
2. 06:12, 9 April 2013 Revert at 24hrs +4:03
3. 06:18, 10 April 2013 Revert at 24hrs +0:06

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

I can't find his being formally notified of the case, but he's been sanctioned multiple times and has brought multiple complaints here, so obviously aware.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The edit summary of the last edit should suffice for the cause of this request. I feel like I might be gaming he system by waiting 24hrs. Yes, yes you are gaming [t]he system by waiting 24hrs. The information on the Golan's status had previously been in the body, and was removed by another user. I added it elsewhere, Cptnono reverts without comment on the talk page. He is reverted and waits for 24 hours and 6 whole minutes to revert again. That after the prior revert had taken place 28 hours and 3 minutes after he his prior revert.

Cailil, the last two reverts are the same, and further they have nothing to do with the inclusion or exclusion of the wikilink Archaeology of Israel. Your second diff of my supposed edit-warring is my requesting a citation, and the third is rewriting the text to correspond to the cited reference when one was not supplied. I cannot tell how either of those diffs show me edit-warring over anything. nableezy - 15:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Cailil, please explain how adding a {{cn}} tag or rewriting the text to conform to the source when no additional source was provided is part of a slow edit war. nableezy - 17:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Cptnono

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Cptnono

The second diff was not intentionally waiting 24 hours (coincidence). Admittedly, the third was. That is fairly minor and it should be noted that Nableezy said he was not going to engage in discussion† even though I opened an RfC while Supreme Deliciousness completely ignored the talk page altogether. This is a knee-jerk AE request with very little meat.

I also did use the talk page (forgive the typos my keyboard is gummy on this machine) but: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARujm_el-Hiri&diff=549631456&oldid=549460921 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rujm_el-Hiri&diff=prev&oldid=549255671 detailed edit summaries +an RfC request

I took a break from editing and played by the rules. I don't celebrate division on my user page by listing every AE discussion I have been part of and assumed we could grow past our turbulent history. I am not going to start throwing accusations around and providing diffs for why I believe both Nableezy and SD should be topic banned because that is how these AEs get out of hand. But if any admin feels that I deserve to be sanctioned then I would appreciate 24 hours for a proper response. I also do not think Tim should be allowed to act in this case due to my previous (and still unresolved) comments regarding potential bias.

†[39]Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be (reluctantly) noted that I was sanctioned by you, Sandstein(AGK) years ago and you(he) let me know that disputing it under the grounds that I was not formally notified could appear to be wikilawyering. So I am aware of the sanctions. This also is not a 1/rr infraction. If anything it is edit warring. However, I only "edit warred" with two reverts over 2 days without discussion from the parties I was reverting. (not asking to be in trouble just trying to be up front)Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for getting you and AGK confused. I think I am basically getting at: If you think I crossed a line with the third diff then give me a warning or even a minor sanction. I feel that Nableezy intentionally goaded me then there was some slight tag teaming. I might be overreacting and over-analyzing it. But that third diff (the only one that I see as a problem) was very minor. I tried to do right by using the talk page instead of running to AE. I don't want to circumvent punishment (since any sanction would be barely addressing "disruption") on a technicality.Cptnono (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I am torn right now. I was too busy to log in the last couple days and was happy to see that I was not blocked since I did make that single revert that may have crossed the line. From a quick scan of the thoughts from some comments: NO, the ongoing semantics over "if" "in" "of" Israel have absolutely no bearing on this case. We can (and probably should) open an RfC on it but right now we should be discussing if I crossed a line. The first and second reverts are not a problem. The third (and only problematic one) was me making a revert when the editors refused to use the talk page. Go ahead and levy an appropriate sanction for that single edit. It was not multiple edits and ongoing content disputes are not within the scope of this request.

Also, can we be open about what this is? I admittedly made a revert that could raise eyebrows but we all know this AE continues a battlefield mentality. You guys are counting diffs between Nab, SD, and BS. That is not needed. This is an article about archaeology! Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Cptnono

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I agree that this conduct would normally be sanctionable as gaming the system to edit-war. But even if an editor is already aware of the case or has previously been sanctioned, this does not change the fact that a warning as described in WP:AC/DS#Warnings is still a formal requirement for imposing sanctions (see my view at WP:ARCA#Statement by Sandstein, issue 2). In addition, I'm of the view that WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction is unenforceable at least if the editor at issue has not received an individual warning about it (see my view at WP:ARCA#Statement by Sandstein, issue 1). In that ARCA thread, T. Canens notes (correctly, in my view) that this requirement can be satisfied with a warning in an editnotice. However, the article at issue, Rujm el-Hiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), has no such editnotice. I'm therefore of the view that we can do nothing here but issue the required warning to Cptnono.  Sandstein  08:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I note that Cptnono has waived the warning requirement (if any), so we can examine the matter on the merits. I'll post comments about that later.  Sandstein  09:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Given that these are 3 2 different edits being reverted I'm inclinded to be a bit more lenient. That said this is clearly an attempt to "wait out the restriction". Which is unacceptable. Cptnono has in fact accepted this about the 3rd revert above. Given that its 12 months since Cptnono was blocked (for anything) and given that it's over 2 years since their last ArbPia enforcement blocked (which was 3 hours) I would suggest a 24-72 hour block. For gaming 1RR, editwarring and tendentiousness.
  The reason I'm suggesting this is beacuse from a perusal of the talk page of that article I can see a significant level of tendentious editting by a number of users (Biosketch's talk activity being the worst example). The Arab-Israel Wikipedia conflict has been imported there - that's what the RFARs are designed to stop. With that in mind whether there is a sanctions notice on the page is irrelevant, the users involved are bringing that issue to that page and frankly I'd support a wider investigation here into the editwarring at the heart of Cptnono's reverts above.
  For instance looking at just one of the reverts in context, the slow edit war over the inclusion of the wikilink and phrase of "archaeology of Israel" goes back weeks and includes 3 editors, Cptnono[40][41], Nableezy[42][43][44], Biosketch[45][46]. An inital removal was made by Supreme Deliciousness[47] but they have not editwarred. This editwar has dominated the edits to this article since February 2013. In fact in the 12 month period between March 2012 and March 2013 there were only 3 edits. Since then there have been over 30 edits (roughly 30% of which is this editwar). With that in mind I'm inclinded to at least suggest a page ban all for 3 editors: Cptnono, Nabeelzy, and Biosketch--Cailil ^talk 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the assessment regarding Cptnono as concerns gaming and editwarring, likewise Biosketch (who I've notified of this thread), not so sure about Nableezy, whose edits, in part, go beyond sterile back-and-forth editwarring. I'm not a fan of short blocks, as they tend to be punitive rather than preventative. Ultimately, if an editor can't contribute collegially in this general topic area, what they need is a topic ban. I'm frankly unsure what should be done. In and of itself, the edit war is rather trivial, but I am strongly disappointed in having to see the same usernames (notably Cptnono and Nableezy) in ARBPIA AE disputes for years and years on end.  Sandstein  17:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point re: Nableezy but like you I am dismayed at seeing their continued border-line behaviour in relation to the RFAR ruling. There comes a point when line-stepping is in and of itself not helping the encyclopedia. That said, I agree that in this instance (if viewed in isolation) thier role was not the worst. Unfortunately I think we have to open the can of worms, because if this incident is a spill-over conflict (and it has all the hallmarks of one IMHO) it behooves us to find out where/how it started. And in my view if we have a situation where the same editors are fighting the same (fundamentally off-wiki) conflict on multiple articles we have to stop it. Or else we'll just be here again for the upteenth time.
On a side note, and I'm not necessarily advocating this, the last time that I saw situation at AE like this, mandated external review would have been the preferred sanction but at that point it wasn't available. MER is something that could be considered, but it would require significant work from the reviewing sysop/mentor. As real life (i.e work) commitments preclude me from being able to do this I'm loathe to ask someone else to, but that said it remains an option--Cailil ^talk 18:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This MER thing looks rather time-consuming and complicated; I can't imagine it working reliably over any length of time.  Sandstein  08:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Since the submitted reverts show Cptnono gaming the WP:1RR restriction, I would favor a sanction of some kind. The discussion at Talk:Rujm el-Hiri#wikilink about the definition of 'Israeli archaeology' suggests that some opportunities for compromise were missed. In that discussion it looks to me that Biosketch and Cptnono are playing word games to make this site part of the domain of 'Israeli archaeology', due merely to the fact that some of the scientists who explored the site were Israeli. If they can win this argument will it give additional proof that the Golan Heights are part of Israel? It should not tax anyone's brain to come up with politically neutral ways of stating (a) where the archaeological site is located, (b) who the scientists were who studied the site. The page at Talk:Rujm el-Hiri looks to be mostly a nationalist turf war and not much about archaeology. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• As in the above case, I agree with your analysis. A medium-term topic ban for the two users who are using this article about a completely apolitical archaeological site to "mark the territory" for one side in the territorial dispute about the Golan Heights appears appropriate. But I can't find a previous warning per WP:AC/DS#Warnings for Biosketch; if there is none, all we can do is issue one.  Sandstein  08:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

On the note about Biosketch not being formally warned, as far as I'm concerned any user who has taken part in 14 ARBPIA AE requests [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61] (5 of which they actually started and one of which led to them being cautioned about misusing AE) has been "constructively warned" and gives up the right to ignorance of the sanctions. If Biosketch wants to hold others to account vis-a-vis the RFARs they have to know that the sanctions exist, historically that would have been the finding here, however I am cognisant of the current WP:ARCA discussion about AE procedures. IMHO the actions of importing an off-wiki agenda, that has had long running attempts at resolution on-wiki, to an article where it previously has not occurred are extremely serious and are probably worthy of a WP:DE sanction outside of the RFAR. But if it is the consensus here that recent 'clarifications' on AC/DS have in fact tied our hands (at least until "early next month") we are left with the options of revisiting this or simply warning Biosketch, both of which are unsatisfactory. Another option is to sanction and let them appeal, personally in this case that action may in fact led to clarity for us at AE and would be consistent with how others have been treated in past cases. But agree we have a strange situation here--Cailil ^talk 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the talk page of the article, there are ridiculous word games being played by Cptnono and actually, to a greater extent, BioSketch (the conversation where he pretends for five posts not to understand what the problem with linking to Archaeology of Israel is would be almost comical if it weren't clearly disruptive). I would support a sanction of some sort on both, and agree with Cailil that sanctioning and allowing appeal is the best route - it is not possible, as Cptnono admits, that regular editors are not aware of the restrictions. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua

No action warranted in response to the complaint. -- MastCell Talk 04:57, 14 April 2013
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning KillerChihuahua User who is submitting this request for enforcement The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 21:17, 11 April 2013 Undoes over 100 edits and returns entire article to this version on February 15 2013. Subsequently makes 15 more edits to try and fix the problematic aspects of that mass revert. 14:34, 12 February 2013‎ Similar to above, during dispute on one part of the lede KC reverts all the way back to the lede from September of 2010. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) This editor is an admin who frequents AE and knows about the discretionary sanctions well enough to know what kind of behavior is acceptable. All the same, back in February, I did remind her of the discretionary sanctions with regards to her conduct on the subject. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I really am baffled by KC's behavior on this topic, it seems in this recent instance she basically reverted all the way back to the point when she stopped contributing to the article. She has basically been a bull in a China shop in her edit-warring on this article and these reverts to much older versions are disruptive to the point of making constructive work on the article impossible. She engaged in a lot of rapid and extensive deletions back in February and hardly participated in any talk page discussion over such edits, which basically meant that other editors would have to discuss some content she deleted to try and correct issues she raised and before we could get anything done she would delete some other large bit of material, forcing us to discuss that until everyone was tired of discussing anything. This is just not the kind of conduct that should be expected from an AE admin participating in an area subject to discretionary sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Aprock, the issue here is that she went in and reverted over 100 edits, apparently without bothering to check at what she was doing until after the fact. Some of the issues she created were fixed and others are still there. I don't have the will to clean up after her or rehash a bunch of other discussions after what happened in February.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC) That is not even remotely a fair characterization of what I am saying. I am saying that KC's mass-reverting and mass-deleting has exhausted my will. Back in February I raised my concerns about this kind of reverting and tried to work with KC, but it obviously isn't stopping her from doing this kind of thing.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC) KC's conduct in February is why I felt so quickly compelled to initiate an AE case over this recent revert. Her conduct then was reckless and disruptive and I don't want to see it resumed. See the relevant part of the article revision history and the talk archives here and here. KC was most actively involved in this discussion and this one.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The "cleanup" KC engaged in mostly concerned obvious collateral damage such as her removing tags and re-adding interwiki links that had been removed by Addbot. Many substantive changes were made that have been reverted with no actual explanation, in addition to various other reasonable improvements such as one edit that fixed a dead link.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Sandstein, setting all the chaff aside, there is no reason why KC being an admin would prevent you from reviewing this request. Honestly, I doubt you would find many who would consider reverting over 100 edits made by over a dozen editors of varying perspectives on a highly contentious article. Most editors would see it as monumentally disruptive, admin or not.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Ed, I was not really interested in any sort of block or topic-ban. My interest is that reverting of this magnitude by KC be stopped. It should go without saying that you don't revert 100 edits that were made over two months by over a dozen editors and only offer as your explanation: "Not seeing recent changes as an improvement, this article is getting more fractured, not less." A restriction on KC or perhaps the article that prevents this type of reverting could be sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I am not saying I was exhausted by two edits. See the two specific talk page sections I linked in the last sentence of my remark at 17:08, 12 April 2013 and BH's statement about KC's editing in February. Those are all things that factored into the situation.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [62] Discussion concerning KillerChihuahua Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by KillerChihuahua I reverted to a version by BlackHades, which changed little as intervening edits were mostly back-and-forth. When one restores an earlier version and there were intervening good edits, one restores those changes, and that's what I did, noting this in edit summaries; including edits by BH and TDA. I removed content tagged as uncited since 2011; rephrased a sentence ("studies argue" I changed to "authors of studies argue" since studies cannot argue); I made a MoS fix and a dablink fix. Regarding the edit back in Feb, that was a different situation and edit, with considerable discussion on the talk page, and although my attempt to end an edit war over the lead by going back to an earlier longstanding version had strong support on the talk page at that time, it was promptly reverted by BlackHades[63] and no one has edit warred to keep it. It is bizarre to me that I'm accused of edit warring, as I restored BlackHades' version and not my old version which TDA inexplicably refers to. Am I now accused of being BlackHades' meatpuppet? Is TDA "exhausted" by two edits he didn't like, one of which was reverted by BlackHades in Feb, and one of which I explain above? Regarding Akuri's claims, if he has tried to discuss "these matters" with me at all I'd be appreciative of a diff, unless he's referring to his post on the article talk page at 22:43 11 April. Ditto for the rest of his accusations, as I have no recollection of any such behavior as he describes. KillerChihuahua 16:54, 12 April 2013‎ Oh, did I miss a dead link? Thanks for letting me know, I'll go find it and fix it. KillerChihuahua 17:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Ok, done. Anything else? KillerChihuahua 17:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Atethnekos, I'm trying not to edit the article while this AE request is open, except with the broken link that seemed impossible to misconstrue. I'm more than happy to revisit the details and restore consensus edits I missed; I missed a dead link which I've already fixed after TDA brought it to my attention, and I can either restore the edit you mention after this request closes, or you can do it and I'll be just as happy. I have no objection to that fix. I wasn't quite done when I got called away from the pc last night, and then of course when I got back on today this was here. So I apologize for any dismay at the delay, but really think I should avoid editing the article during this. KillerChihuahua 22:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Sandstein, I find myself agreeing with TDA here. While it is true that All parties are subject to sanctions and may have their actions reviewed, it is also true you can ignore chatter not connected with the original complaint. While I sympathize with your desire to have someone who called you an officious little jerk in front of ArbCom, I don't think this is the opportune moment. KillerChihuahua 18:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by aprock This is a curious request for enforcement. As evidence of edit waring The Devil's Advocate presents two diffs separated by months. The most recent diff is from just over an hour prior to the request for enforcement. The Devil's Advocate has neither raised the issue on the article talk page, nor on KillerChihuahua's talk page. The edit from February coincides with very active participation by KillerChihuahua on the article talk page. The request seems premature at best. aprock (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The suggestion that a single series of consecutive edits should be brought to AE by The Devil's Advocate because he doesn't have the will to edit collaboratively is nothing less than disruptive. I suggest that The Devil's Advocate be formally warned that the topic area is under discretionary sanctions and reminded to pursue usual avenues of dispute resolution in lieu of immediately turning to AE at the first sign of edits that he does not agree with. aprock (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Akuri I have been trying to resolve these issues on the talk page, and I also tried to in February when I was editing as an IP before I had an account. Although I've tried to resolve the dispute, I agree with The Devil's Advocate that taking this to AE is necessary. It's impossible to collaborate with someone who doesn't try to justify their reverts on the talk page, even when reverting more than a month's worth of edits. When KillerChihuahua has explained what she thought was wrong with the content she removed, which isn't always, she hasn't been willing to try to fix any of the problems she raised with it. So it's been up to editors like The Devil's Advocate, BlackHades and myself to try to rewrite the content in a way that could satisfy her. Then there would be another round of mass reverts or deletions, and the discussion would restart from the beginning. KillerChihuahua's editing forces the discussion into an endless cycle where we have to discuss the same content again and again, which makes it impossible to move forward with improving the article, even for people like me and BlackHades who are still trying to. Akuri (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I want to note that I for one agree with Sandstein's suggestion to request a case. I understand the sentiment that this report should examine KillerChihuahua's conduct and no one else's, but doing nothing about all of the other issues only means they'll come up again. The one-way interaction bans have been a major source of conflict at least since last July. For more details see my comment in Sandstein's user talk. Akuri (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Comments on apparent gaming of The Devil's Advocate's one-way interaction ban Note to admins: The Devil's Advocate is under a one-way interaction ban with Mathsci, which he was placed under at AE. Ever since he was placed under the one-way ban, Mathsci has followed him to discussions he wasn't previously involved in, to make accusations agains The Devil's Advocate that TDA can't respond to. Apart from his post in this thread, three examples of that are [64], [65] and [66]. At talk:Guns, Germs and Steel, The only other time Mathsci ever edited that page was to wikihound Academia Orientalis, a previous editor whom he ALSO followed around the project. Some of the other examples of him doing it to that editor were listed by Cla68. Now that he is doing the same thing to The Devil's Advocate while The Devil's Advocate has a one-way interaction ban with him, can AE please turn the one-way iban into a mutual ban? Akuri (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Mathsci The Devil's Advocate does not appear to have discussed matters with KillerChihuahua (either on her talk page or on the article talk page) before rushing here with jumped-up claims. As Aprock comments, TDA has misused this noticeboard. As far as KillerChihuahua is concerned, TDA could be nursing a grudge, since he was dismissive when she gave him an official warning about calling Sandstein an "officious little jerk". [67] Comments on editing in concert related to WP:ARBR&I and this enforcement request The new account Akuri has described above what is quite commonly called a WP:TAG TEAM. According to his own description, it consists of the editors BlackHades, The Devil's Advocate and Akuri. They do not edit singly, but as a small unit, justifying controversial edits with false claims of consensus. That appears to be contrary to the guidelines laid down in WP:ARBR&I. BlackHades: He accused KillerChihuahua and Dougweller of being sockpuppets or meatpuppets of each other in a now deleted SPI report. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KillerChihuahua. As a consequence his account was blocked for one week and he received a logged warning under WP:ARBR&I. Akuri: The recently created account Akuri appears to be a disruption-only account, after barely 50 edits. He previously edited in the range 101.0.71.0/24. Now he has made a large number of logged-off edits in the range 101.0.79.0/24. The cumulative edits have included personal attacks on Dougweller, suggesting that he was acting as a meatpuppet, and most recently MastCell. These have all been in connection with WP:ARBR&I.[68][69][70][71] Akuri has in addition attempted to give an unlogged warning of ARBR&I discretionary sanctions to ArtifexMayhem.[72] His IP hopping is still a problem. In this edit he seems to have designated BlackHades as the content contributor in the tag team.[73] The Devil's Advocate: TDA seems to have taken on the role of marshalling the tag team. He put a lot of effort into helping Akuri register an account at WP:AN, after Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked the first IP range. TDA has a long history of failed wiki-litigation in WP:ARBR&I. He has edited to support TrevelyanL85A2, now blocked indefinitely, and Zeromus1, an arbcom-banned sockpuppet of Ferahgo the Assassin. The original arbcom case involved a tag team (Captain Occam, David.Kane and Mikemikev). The review determined that another group of editors later edited in concert. This does not seem very different. Perhaps, given the disruptive nature of this request, The Devil's Advocate and Akuri should receive logged warnings of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBR&I. Mathsci (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The account Akuri (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a disruption-only account as evidenced by his editing record. His edits contain negative comments and aspersions about MastCell, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Dougweller, KillerChihuahua, etc. Many of these statements verge on "trolling," since there is usually no basis at all for what they suggest. He has persistently made logged out edits, IP hopping in the range 101.0.79.0/24—an editing pattern which presents its own problems. Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Akuri's second set of comments lack WP:CLUE. For whatever reason, topic bans have usually been disregarded in arbcom space. Certainly that is how for example The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 have proceeded. Akuri also seems unaware that I participated recently in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram along with The Devil's Advocate. So what? Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Regarding BlackHades' remarks: The CU/SPI report on the Mikemikev sock PsychKitten is here. This is the ANI report about Akuri disruptively enabling an IP sock of Echigo mole, in violation of an arbcom motion, and BlackHades making his disruptive SPI report on KillerChihuahua & Dougweller. Here TDA campaigned with BlackHades against the range block of 101.0.71.0/24, Akuri's former IP range. Mathsci (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Atethnekos I'm not entirely sure what this enforcement request is supposed to accomplish. My concern with the edit mentioned by The Devil's Advocate above [74] was that it reverted a change I made in response to some issues raised by user Guettarda in the following discussion section: Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Misrepresentation_of_sources. BlackHades and Guettarda debated how to fix the content, and KillerChihuahua added some insight as well. I felt the issue was easily resolvable, I offered this view, and changed the content as well. I thought the change helped, because the issue seemed to go away. But now the edit mentioned above returns the content to which Guettarda objected. I am just wondering why my edit was not an improvement and how it contributed to the fracturing of the article. I think Guettarda's objection is now unaddressed, which is not good because he raised a legitimate objection to content not precisely following sources. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC) What KillerChihuahua writes above directed towards me addresses the concern I had with this issue. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Opinion by MONGO I think The Devil's Advocate is nearing the point of exhausting the patience of the community. I strongly suspect that The Devil's Advocate is a ban evader. That's my opinion.--MONGO 20:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Opinion by Beyond My Ken Further to what MONGO writes above, if TDA is not himself a ban evader, he is certainly a major enabler of ban evaders. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by BlackHades KillerChihuahua's edits have been extremely problematic and disruptive. She has been making huge reverts without discussion and removing hundreds of edits by countless editors time and time again. Once to a version from over 2 months ago [75], another time to a version from over 2 years ago [76], and another time reverting 20 edits to improve the lead by several different editors that worked together here. [77] Constantly reverting countless improvements by countless editors that have worked together to improve the article. She appears to be very heavily opinionated on the topic of Race and Intelligence, which of itself is not a problem or issue but becomes one when she starts practicing WP:Truth by deleting and reverting properly cited text that goes against her POV. Such as constantly deleting the lead that mentions the existence of average racial IQ differences here and here and here and here. Despite the fact that the text in question adheres to WP:LEAD and has always been a part of the lead of this article for several years without any disputes. While the cause of average racial IQ differences certainly remains in dispute among researchers in the field today, the mere existence of average IQ differences between races is universally acknowledged by all researchers across the board. I have mentioned this fact to KillerChihuahua, which is also acknowledged by all other editors of the article except for KillerChihuahua, who stated that the existence of average IQ differences between races is "not universally accepted (except by certain racists and race supremacist groups)." [78] She is certainly entitled to her own opinion. But when her opinion conflicts with the universal consensus of the field, as well as the universal consensus among editors of the article, but she decides to force her POV anyways by removing accurate text that adheres to guidelines through deletions and mass reverts it is extremely problematic. Her latest mass revert appears to be for the permanent removal of the section "Brain Size". Which she stated "There is no "fixing" a section which has no RS which are about the article. You cannot "fix" synth and OR by simply saying you're-adding it." [79]. This is despite the fact that one of the sources is Hunt & Carlson which is widely considered to be a reliable secondary source by nearly all other editors. Her statement seems to indicate she will not allow the section "Brain Size" to exist under any circumstances regardless of what changes any other editors make. As her personal opinion is that there is "no RS which are about the article". Despite the fact that many published peer reviewed studies in major mainstream journals does exist on the specific topic, as well as numerous secondary sources, and despite other editors that completely disagree with her and acknowledge the existence of these many reliable sources. She will not allow this section to exist under any circumstances. In regards to Mathsci's accusation of WP:TAG TEAM. This is downright comical. Mathsci has a very long history of attacking and accusing any and every editor from Race and Intelligence that doesn't edit the article from his strict POV including falsely accusing both me and Akuri of sockpuppetry here.[80]. BlackHades (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Tom Harrison I've been reading through the article and talk page, and it seems to me exaggerated to say KC undid over 100 edits. This diff more accurately shows KC's change. I really don't understand the basis of TDA's complaint. It doesn't look to me like KC disrupted the article, or the talk page, where discussion is proceeding. Tom Harrison Talk 18:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek If Akuri, commenting above, isn't a sock of a banned user, I'll stuff jalapeno cheetos up my nose, take pictures and post them on Commons.Volunteer Marek 20:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC) @ Sir Fozzie R&I is, and likely forever will be a very contentious area. - Please. That's about as a clear cut admission that Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, including WP:AE, which is part of it, is a total failure as one could ask for. R&I isn't Sarah Palin. It's not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's not Polish-German quabbles over Gdanzig or Copernicus. It's not Scientology. It's not the Armenian Genocide. I could agree if your statement referred to these. But this is actually a much narrowly defined topic area which really *shouldn't* be controversial. I've seen and joyfully (and less so) participated in LOTS of contentious areas on Wikipedia. At most what you get in them is something like a total of 5 or 6 committed editors over a span of three or four years. Counting numbers on both sides. But somehow this area manages to attract this many new accounts within a space of months, ad nauseam. And as soon as one account gets banned a few more pop up. So spare us the excuses and the hand washing. The only reason why this topic area is a continuous problem is because of the persistent, long ongoing sock puppetry and meat puppetry which - as anyone who's paid attention for at least some time knows - is coordinated by a small group of individuals who manage to generate many more user accounts than their existential, spiritual and physical presence can justify. And it's the same shit over and over again. Yes, this provokes an "equal and opposite reaction" in folks like Mathsci who get a bit obsessed with hunting down all these sock puppets and meat puppets. But the problem is that there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done about all the sock/meat puppetry. Frankly, from now on, anyone who brings up an WP:AE request or tries to agitate for another R&I case (which of course, would address the great "wrongs" of the past R&I cases, which unfairly banned some user which the filer is not actually familiar with but feels the need to speak up for anyway) should automatically get their ass checkusered. Any SPA that gets obsessive about the topic area needs to be checkusered. Any new, especially SP accounts should be required to establish a strong consensus on the talk page before being allowed to make changes to these articles (i.e. reverting them would be exempt from the 3RR rule). Most of the pages in the topic area need to be put on permanent semi-protection. And what you really need to come up with is a way which will cause these people to get simply BORED with this crap and leave on their own. There's nothing intrinsic about this topic which would cause it to be "forever... very contentious". Wikipedia DR just fucked it up along the way.Volunteer Marek 02:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username) <-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> Result concerning KillerChihuahua This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The allegations that have been made here include allegations of disruptive editing and/or POV-pushing by an administrator (The Devil's Advocate, Akuri, BlackHades), allegations of making a disruptive AE request (Aprock, Mathsci), allegations of disruptive editing by tag-teaming including single-purpose accounts and sock-/meatpuppetry (Mathsci), and allegations of ban evasion or enabling thereof (MONGO, Beyond My Ken). While at least some of these statements raise serious concerns, the evidence is by far not clear enough for me to be able to determine what, if any, action is needed. That would require a much more in-depth analysis than is reasonably possible here. This request reflects the sort of complicated multiparty dispute about alleged longterm misconduct by veteran editors that individual AE administrators are not well-equipped to sort out on their own (maybe that's why nobody has commented here so far). I therefore propose that we refer the request to the Arbitration Committee with the recommendation that they determine whether the allegations are substantial enough to warrant opening an arbitration case.  Sandstein  08:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC) To clarify: that misconduct on the part of an administrator has been alleged is not the problem (but it underlines the severity of the allegations, as administrators are expected to conduct themselves in an exemplary manner). Administrators are subject to discretionary sanctions in the same manner as other editors. What makes responding to this request difficult for an individual reviewer is the number and scope of the various allegations, and the attendant difficulty in establishing the relevant facts. This board is not set up for conducting the sort of detailed evidentiary proceedings that appear necessary to address all allegations that have been made here with respect to the recent editing at Race and intelligence.  Sandstein  17:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I don't think this complaint is of sufficient importance to justify a two-month deliberation by Arbcom. If memory serves, there have been quite a large volume of complaints to Arbcom and also here at this noticeboard about race and intelligence. The reason for this is presumably that those who are attached to this issue are unusually persistent. What's been brought here this time looks like a plain content dispute, and there is no hint that Killerchihuahua was intending to carry out her admin role at Race and intelligence. If all we have to go on is what's submitted in this complaint, I would advise the editors to go back to the talk page and open a WP:Request for comment. If the same data were presented at the 3RR noticeboard it would probably be closed with (at most) some article protection. There is no case for blocking or sanctioning anyone. In his comment above Sandstein lists a number of the allegations mentioned in this thread, but you need to make allowances for the high level of rhetoric that is common in anything about WP:ARBR&I. We shouldn't allow our own time or that of Arbcom to be wasted. If this business turns out to be intractable we can impose permanent full protection at Race and intelligence and only allow edits to be made through talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I don't really see any substance to the initial complaint here. KillerChihuahua's actions are indistinguishable from the standard bold, revert, discuss cycle. The idea that TDA's will has been "exhausted" by two edits by KC over the course of >2 months is somewhat hard to credit. No doubt everyone associated with this topic area is a bit exhausted - particularly those who have had to deal with the rotating cast of sockpuppets and single-purpose agenda-driven editors - but if we're going to sanction people for exhausting their fellow editors then I don't think I start with KC, at least not on the strength of the evidence presented here. As to the question of opening an ArbCom case, it's important to recognize that a number of personalities active in this topic area thrive on wiki-litigation. If there's an actual basis for a case, then by all means one should be requested, but many of these accounts seem to view wiki-litigation rather than actual editing as their primary purpose, and we shouldn't really enable that unfortunate tendency. MastCell Talk 21:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC) (e.c.) I agree that the original complaint hasn't convinced me that the two reverts at issue reflect more than a content dispute. But the rest of the allegations made here (even if many of them turn out to be unfounded) indicate to me that the editing environment of that article is still quite unhealthy. We shouldn't just dismiss them as "rhetoric", because casting unproven aspersions of serious misconduct against others in public fora is, in and of itself, a conduct problem. If somebody doesn't take a good hard look at the conduct of everybody involved, these issues are likely to fester and lead to continued trouble. That's particularly because many of those involved are administrators or otherwise veteran editors, which means that wikipolitics, old grudges etc. will further complicate any attempt at addressing individual problems that may pop up, as will continuing allegations of puppetry or ban evasion, which are very difficult to prove or disprove, but contribute to poisoning the editing environment. On that basis, I still favor a referral to the Committee, which is free to decline the case if they think there's nothing here worth their time. If other uninvolved admins disagree, I don't object to a no-action closure of this request, because I agree that we don't really have a clear basis for administrative action here. Full protection should only be used as a last resort, I think, because it penalizes well-behaved editors and makes it more likely that the dispute spills over to related articles. That's why I favor editor-specific remedies over article-specific ones.  Sandstein  21:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC) My thoughts: I do not find these allegations enumerated in this complaint to be substantiated to the point of taking any actions here. R&I is, and likely forever will be a very contentious area. I think what we're seeing here is.. for lack of a better phrase, assuming bad faith, because so much bad faith has been shown between editors previously in this area. I would suggest that while we may or may not be at the point of opening yet another Arbitration Committee case, that continued sniping and filing of complaints (both justified and not) make it ever more likely that another case would be the proper path to take here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by astronomer28

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

astronomer28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Astronomer28 (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of Nicolaus Copernicus or to other issues of debated Polish/German nationality claims, imposed at

User Talk: astronomer28#Topic_ban, logged at WP:ARBEE

Administrator imposing the sanction

Fut.Perf. (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Notification diff

Statement by astronomer28

1) I have not engaged in edit-warring since my warnings (my most recent revision on April 8, 2013 reverted to a previous version one paragraph that was changed without consensus and another that was in dispute; I've certainly not made any more changes than other users). I will not engage in edit-warring in the future.

2) I have been promoting the NPOV (with evidence of such) throughout, trying to make the article more accurate and have the Copernicus nationality dispute settled. Most recently, I put up a new proposal on the Talk page that can perhaps help to solve it but it's been erased.

3) I have been accused of being a sockpuppet (twice now by one user) and "motivated by nationalism". I am neither and no one has provided any evidence to the contrary. I can perhaps understand the first accusation if I had been pushing a POV (which I have not) because I have an SPA, but not the second. I became involved in the discussion in the first place because the article was inaccurate and did not comply with Wikipedia NPOV guidelines (it still doesn't).

4) You may wonder why I have an SPA. It's for privacy. When I first viewed the Copernicus nationality debate on the Talk page in 2008, some of the discussion was belligerent and included personal attacks. I realize it's sort of a catch-22 since SPAs can draw criticism, but my purpose has been to simply make this Wikipedia article more accurate as it relates to his nationality.

5) A user or two involved in the discussion state that because there had been consensus for a while, we therefore shouldn't change it now. I don't think there's ever been real consensus; there certainly isn't one now. And what kind of an argument is that anyway? Furthermore, stating that Copernicus was a Polish astronomer is not pushing a POV or nationalistic. In fact it's the NPOV and complies with WP:Opening_paragraph#Nationality. Sure, one can disagree (and perhaps someone will show actual evidence of why it's not the NPOV) in the same way as disagreeing with a supposed consensus is good for discussion and makes Wikipedia better.

I request that my topic ban be unblocked. Thank you, Astronomer28 (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

As a long term editor from WP:POLAND, I'll say we don't need this kind of "help" in Copernicus. If that editor wants to be useful, there are plenty of Polish topics in need of improvement that do not involve controversial issues like those covered by the topic ban. Let him/her first prove they can work on uncontroversial issues before stepping into this mess again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by astronomer28

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I'm not convinced by anything in this appeal. He says he hasn't edit warred since his last warning. Surely the two blocks in February ought to have been sufficient warnings that he ought not to have edit warred in April, as he clearly did. This suggests to me that there were sufficient grounds for the ban. The promise not to edit war in the future is simply not credible in the face of this evidence to the contrary. Barring any better reasons, I would support declining this appeal. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• I would decline the appeal. Astronomer28 is, by their own admission, a single purpose account, dedicated to promoting a particular point of view in a higly contested area. That is contrary to WP:NPOV, which applies to conduct as well as to content, and is incompatible (in my view) with a pattern of conduct that only promotes one particular point of view. This alone makes the topic ban justifiable, irrespective of the specific events that triggered it.  Sandstein  08:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Agree this should be declined. I'm a bit concerned that the appellate is in fact trying to evade scrutiny with their SPA for "privacy" as per Wikipedia:SCRUTINY--Cailil ^talk 17:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• On 23 March I warned Astronomer28 that I was considering an indef block if he continued to edit war on Copernicus. This makes me the second admin to warn him of this possibility with regard to that specific article. I had stated that sanctions would be unlikely if he would "avoid making any further changes to the Nicolaus Copernicus article prior to getting a talk page consensus.." It is disappointing that he resumed edit warring at Copernicus on April 8, a fact which led FP to institute the ban which Astronomer28 is now appealing. So against this background, the topic ban from Copernicus appears to be a reasonable step and I would oppose granting this appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Widescreen

Widescreen is warned about the availability of discretionary sanctions in the pseudoscience topic area.  Sandstein  20:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Widescreen User who is submitting this request for enforcement IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Widescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:ARB/PS Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Editor keeps flogging a dead horse about his objections to WP:FRINGE and the existence of List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience here; [81] it appeared to start here: [82]. Despite being told that List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience wasn't the place to complain about the fringe guidelines the editor has persisted with spurious arguments which bring up no specific objection to any particular content (note that the editor appears to have been blocked from the German wikipedia), and his occasional tagging of the article [83][84][85]. The editor appears to be against the existence of the article and has repeatedly argued that it should not exist, but has not taken it to AfD despite being asked to do so if they object to it. Can this editor be given an official warning about discretionary sanctions in this topic area? Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Not an exhaustive list, but here are some examples: Warned on 13 April 2013 by Ronz (talk · contribs) Warned on 12 April 2013, 13 April 2013 by IRWolfie- (talk · contribs) Warned on 12 April 2013 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) Warned on 2 April 2013 by Dougweller (talk · contribs) Warned on 28 March 2013 by BullRangifer (talk · contribs) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [86] Discussion concerning Widescreen Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Widescreen Statement by (username) Result concerning Widescreen This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The request has merit. Edit-warring about the inclusion of a POV tag in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience is disruptive, especially considering that no cogent explanation of what is supposed to be the "point of view" promoted through this list has been made on the talk page. As others have observed, if Widescreen is of the view that this list is as such non-neutral, they should nominate it for deletion, rather than using the talk page as a WP:SOAPbox for their views, which is also disruptive (although I note that others can help to not prolong an unproductive discussion by not replying to any soapboxing). I'm issuing the requested warning.  Sandstein  20:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Russavia

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Russavia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

198.199.67.23 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Russavia's Eastern Europe topic ban

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 14 April 2013 The edit is a violation of Russavia's Eastern Europe topic ban because this article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania that is an Eastern European country

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Blocked on 28 March 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Cannot be done, his talk is protected.

Discussion concerning Russavia

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Result concerning Russavia

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.